Is the Bible Trustworthy in Areas Related to Science? by Walter Bradley

8/7/2019 Is the Bible Trustworthy in Areas Related to Science? by Walter Bradley

1/71


2/71

Is The Bible Trustworthy in

Areas Related to Science?

Walter L. Bradley, Ph.D., P.E.

Distinguished Professor of Engineering

Baylor University


3/71

My Background in Faith-ScienceDialogue

Born in December 1943Dallas

Became a Christian at 12 at Baptist Camp (1956)

B.S.(UT) in Engineering-Physics (1965) Ph.D. (UT) in Materials Science (1968)

Colorado School of Mines (68-76); TAMU (76-2000)

Was a young earth creationist until (1975)

Invited to write and present one of 16 position papers forInternational Council on Biblical Inerrancy commission in1982 (our title for evening)


4/71

Background Continued

Spoke (1978-1983) on many campuses on faith-science for Probe Ministries and CCC

Co-authored Mystery of Lifes Origin:

Reassessing Current Theories, PhilosophicalLibrary, 1984

Scientific Evidence of Existence of God

lectures >125 times on major universitycampuses to more than 75,000 students and

professors (1986-present)


5/71

Background continued

8 book chapters on faith-science issues

Elected Fellow of American Scientific Affiliation

(ASA) in 1992 Interviewed by Lee Strobel in Case for Faith (p131)

Full-time staff ; CCC faculty ministry (2000-2002)

Distinguished Professor of Mechanical Engineering,Baylor University (2002-present)

Executive Council of ASA since 2005


6/71

What Have I Learned?

Humility!!


7/71

Three QuestionsThree Perspectives

1. Why do so many children who are raised in

evangelical or fundamentalist homes lose their

faith in college?

2. Does modern science support or undermine

belief in God?

3. Can we harmonize discoveries of modernscience with Bible (especially Genesis 1-11)?


8/71

1. Some reasons why..

Opinions based on my own life experience and my

observations of college kids for 43 years.

Three common observations

Circumstantial crisis (like Templeton [for me, 14])

Existential crisis (for me, 15-21)

Intellectual crisis (for me, 17-21)


9/71


10/71

2. Does Modern Science Support

Belief in God (Theism) or Atheism? Big Bang and a universe that began

Apparent design seen in the universe inThe mathematical form nature takesUniversal constants that are just right

Highly specific initial conditions met

A Garden of Eden in this universe

Origin of Life complexity with highinformational requirements


11/71

Important Disclaimer

One cannot scientifically proveor disprove the existence of

God.One can and should ask,What does the character or nature of

nature suggest?

Does it appear to be designed or justa natural accident or coincidence?


12/71

2A. What is Big-BangCosmology?


13/71

History of the Big Bang

The term big bang was a derisive namegiven by opponents of the concept.

1929-1965: Evidence favored a big bangbut the steady-state hypothesis was favored

for philosophical reasons (i.e., it supportsatheism).

1965: The discovery of background radiationpersuaded most cosmologists to accept the

Big Bang theory. 1992: Hubble and COBE discoveries

provided overwhelming support for a bigbang.


14/71

Philosophical implications of

the Big Bang

So long as the universe had a

beginning, we could suppose it

had a creator.

Stephen HawkingA Brief History of Time


15/71

Philosophical Implications of the

Big Bang

A universe that has eternally existed is

more compatible with atheism.A universe of finite duration, which the

Big Bang predicts, is more compatible

with deism or theism (or belief in aCreator God).


16/71

God and the AstronomersDr. Robert Jastrow, Columbia U.

Robert Jastrows famous address to the

American Association for the Advancement ofSciences Annual Symposium in 1977

Subsequently published as a book by thesame title by W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Jastrow was the director of the Goddard

Space Center and a Professor at ColumbiaUniversity at the time.


17/71

Conclusion of Jastrows Talk

For the scientist who has lived byhis faith in the power of reason, thestory (of the big bang) ends like a

bad dream. He has scaled themountains of ignorance; he is aboutto conquer the highest peak; as hepulls himself over the final rock, heis greeted by a band of theologianswho have been sitting there forcenturies.


18/71

2A. Summary of the Evidence

from Big-Bang Theory

Scientific evidence overwhelminglysupports the Big-Bang cosmology.

Big-Bang cosmology is one ofstrongest evidences for a creator God!!


19/71

Recent experience at my church

Gwen shared talk she had with grandson

who had been learning about Big Bang in

science in elementary school and was soupset!

http://www.reasons.org/siteSearch/node/?ke

ys=big+bang&x=19&y=16Big Bang The Bible Taught it First
http://www.reasons.org/siteSearch/node/?keys=big+bang&x=19&y=16http://www.reasons.org/siteSearch/node/?keys=big+bang&x=19&y=16http://www.reasons.org/siteSearch/node/?keys=big+bang&x=19&y=16http://www.reasons.org/siteSearch/node/?keys=big+bang&x=19&y=16


20/71

Why Some Christians Reject Big

Bang Cosmology Big Bang implies a beginning but also

implies a very old universe!!

Ironically, opposition to the big bang unitesatheist and young earth creationists


21/71

2A. An Orderly Universe Is One

Described by Mathematics Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton all wroteadmiringly about our orderly, mathematicaluniverse.

They believed that God designed the universe, andit was to be expected that all phenomena of naturewould follow one master plan. The universe wasorderly and thus described by mathematicsbecause God fashioned it that way.

It is the orderliness in nature that makes it possibleto describe it with mathematics and not themathematics that makes it orderly!


22/71


23/71

Nobel Laurete Expresses HisWonder

The enormous usefulness of mathematics is

something bordering on the mysterious.

There is no rational explanation for it. The

miracle of the appropriateness of the languageof mathematics for the formulation of the laws

of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither

understand nor deserve.E. Wigner, 1960, The Unreasonable Effectiveness

of Mathematics in Physical Sciences.


24/71

Internationally Renown Astrophysicist

Expresses His Wonder ?

All the evidence so far indicates that manycomplex structures depend most delicately

on the existing forms of these laws. It is

tempting to believe, therefore, that acomplex universe will emerge only if the

laws of physics are close to what they

areThe lawsseem to be the product of

exceedingly ingenious design.

Paul Davies

Internationally Renown Astrophysicist


25/71

Internationally Renown AstrophysicistExpresses His Wonder

A common reaction among physicists to remarkable

discoveries of the sort discussed above is a mixture ofdelight at the subtlety and elegance of nature, and ofstupefaction: I would never have thought of doing it thatway. If nature is so clever it can exploit mechanismsthat amaze us with their ingenuity, is that not persuasiveevidence for the existence of intelligent design behindthe physical universe? If the worlds finest minds canunravel only with difficulty the deeper workings ofnature, how could it be supposed that those workings are

merely a mindless accident, a product of blind chance?

Paul Davies

F A t


26/71

Famous AstronomerExpresses His Wonder

I do not believe that any scientist whoexamines the evidence would fail to draw

the inference that the laws of nuclear

physics have been deliberately designed

with regard to the consequences they will

produce inside stars. If this is so, then my

apparently random quirks have become part

of a deep-laid scheme. If not then we areback to a monstrous sequence of accidents.

Sir Fred Hoyle


27/71

2B. What Are the 19 Universal Constants andwhat do they contribute to design

requirements?

Speed of light c = 3.0 x 108 m/s

Plancks constant h = 6.63 x 10-34 J-s Boltzmanns constant k = 1.38 x 10-23 J/oK

Unit charge e = 1.6 x 10-19 coulombs

Gravity force constant G = 6.67 x 10-11N-m/kg2 Rest masses (in kg) Neutron1.69 x 10

-27

Electron9.11 x 10-31 Partial list of 19 total

Proton1.67 x 10-27

Req irements for ni ersal constants


28/71

Requirements for universal constants

to match photon (light) energy fromsun to chemical bonding energies

6.3 mp2 G/[h c]>~[6.3e2/{hc}]12[me/mp]4

Substituting for h, c, G, me, mp, e

5.9 x 10-39 > 2.0 x 10-39


29/71

Design Requirements for

Universal ConstantsThere are over 35 requirements like the 3

we have just discussed that are required forlife of any imaginable type to exist.

To satisfy all of these conditions requires a

very special set of universal constants to

give a universe such as ours, which seems

in so many ways to be designed for us.


30/71

Design Requirements for Universal

ConstantsWhat Scientists SaySlight variations in physical laws such as

gravity or electromagnetism would make life

impossibleThe necessity to produce life liesat the center of the universes whole

machinery and design.

John Wheeler, Professor of Physics, Princeton


31/71


ConstantsWhat Scientists SayAs we look out into the universe and

identify the many accidents of physics and

astronomy that have worked to our benefit,it almost seems as if the universe must in

some sense have known that we were

coming.Freeman Dyson, 1979


32/71


ConstantsWhat Scientists Say

Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universewhich was created out of nothing, and delicatelybalanced to provide exactly the conditionsrequired to support life. In the absence of anabsurdly-improbably accident, the observationsof modern science seem to suggest an underlying,

one might say supernatural, plan.

Arno Penzias, Nobel laureate in Physics


33/71

Requirements for universal

constants What Scientist SaySuch properties seem to run through the

fabric of the natural world like a thread of

happy coincidences. But there are so manyodd coincidences essential to life that some

explanation seems required to account for

them.Sir Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe,

1984


34/71

Initial Conditions for Velocity after Big-

Bang to Give Stars and ElementsInitial velocity after the big bang

Ratio of gravity (potential) energy and kineticenergy must be equal to 1 part in 100,000.

Two components of expansion drivingcosmological constant must cancel to 1 part in

10123

Scientific American, 1999


35/71

Atheist Stephen Hawkings

Why is the universe so close to the dividing linebetween collapsing again and expanding

indefinitely?...If the rate of expansion one second

after the big bang had been less by one part in 1010 ,

the universe would have collapsed in a few million

years. If it had been greater by one part in 1010 , the

universe would have been essentially empty.One

has either appeal to the anthropic principle or findsome physical explanation for why the universe is

the way it is.


36/71

What distinguishes living from

non-living systems?All living systems.

Process energyStore information

Replicate


37/71


38/71

The characters in our


39/71

The characters in ourstory:

Francis Crick James Watson


40/71

Lysine

Threonine

Tryptophan

Valine

Serine

Phenylalanine

Tyrosine

Isoleucine


41/71

Now what I find profoundlydisturbing is that I cannot conceiv

of anystructure (for either nuclei

acid) acting as a direct templatefor amino acids, or at least as aspecific template....I dont think

anybody looking at DNA or RNAwould think of them as templatesfor amino acids.

Crick (1955) grasps the difficulty:

C i k h i l h b


42/71

Crick then triangulates to what must bethe case from biological necessity:

DNA carries information,

but is chemically non-specific.Yet amino acids have

specific geometries.

Therefore, mediating (adaptor) molecules must exist, toenable specifying information to pass from DNA to amino acids.


43/71

Lysine

Threonine

Tryptophan

Valine

Serine

Phenylalanine

Tyrosine

Isoleucine

adaptor

bind to

nucleic acid

bind to a specific

amino acid

working with a

special dedicated

enzyme (protein)

And, by the way we need20 of these molecules, with 20specially dedicated adaptors, ortRNAs: one for each amino acid.


44/71

transfer RNA


45/71


46/71

Watson (2002, 139) explains why he

doubted the adaptor hypothesis:I did not like the idea at all....

More to the point, the adaptor

mechanism seemed to metoo complicated to have ever

evolved at the origin of life.Watsons biological intuition was constrained

by his materialistic worldview.


47/71

The Enigma of the Origin of

LifeThe largest stumbling block in bridging the gapbetween nonliving and living still remains. All livingcells are controlled by information stored in DNA,which is transcribed in RNA and them made into

protein. This is a very complicated system, and eachof these three molecules requires the other two--eitherto put it together or to help it work. DNA, forexample, carries information but cannot put thatinformation to use, or even copy itself without the

help of RNA and protein.Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph Levine,Biology: The

Living Science (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:Prentice Hall), 1998, p.406-407.


48/71

What other say about the

origin of life? A profound difficulty exists, however, with the

idea of RNA, or any other replicator, at the start oflife. Existing replicators can serve as templates for

the synthesis of additional copies of themselves,but this device cannot be used for the preparationof the very first such molecule, which must arisespontaneously from an unorganized mixture. The

formation of an information-bearing homopolymerthrough undirected chemical synthesis appearsvery improbable.

Robert Shapiro, Prof. Of Biochemistry NYU


49/71

What others say about the

origin of life? The chemistry of the first life is a nightmare to

explain. No one has yet developed a plausibleexplanation to show how the earliest chemicals of

lifethought to be RNAmight have constructedthemselves from the inorganic chemicals likely tohave been around on early earth. The spontaneousassembly of a small RNA molecule on the

primitive earth would have been a near miracletwo experts in the subject (Joyce and Orgel)helpfully declared last year.

Nicholas Wade

New York Times

F A h i N B li i


50/71

Famous Atheist Now Believes inGod, Associated Press,

12/9/2004 A British philosophy professor who has been a

leading champion of atheism for more than a half-

century has changed his mind. He now believes in

God, more or less based on scientific evidence.

Anthony Flew says that biologists investigation

of DNA has shown by the almost unbelievable

complexity of the arrangements which are neededto produce life that intelligence must have been

involved.


51/71

Summary

Evidences that the universe is precisely designed

The BIG BANG Beautiful MATHEMATICAL FORM that nature takes

Remarkable coincidence that the 19 UNIVERSAL

CONSTANTS are exactly what they must be

Remarkable requirement for ORIGIN OF LIFE

argue persuasively that we do not live in an accidental

universe but in one carefully crafted for our benefit.

F d i B B h i


52/71

Frederic B. Burnham, science

historian, on ABCs Nightline,

4/24/1992The scientific community is

prepared to consider the ideaGod created the universe a more

respectable hypothesis today

than at any time in the last 100years.


53/71


54/71


55/71

Intelligent Design.

Is Not an alternative to evolution.

Is an alternative to materialism.

Claims natural processes are inadequate to

explain the complexity and wonder of the

natural world.


56/71

Intelligent Design

Requires less faith than

materialism, a lot less faith !


57/71

Modern science seems to confirm

claim of 1st century religious leader.

Apostle Paul, writing to church in Rome in 1st

Century

For since the creation of the world, His(Gods) invisible attributes, His eternal

power, and divine nature have been clearly

seen, being understood through what hasbeen made, so that they are without

excuse.


58/71

What About Evolution?

Do I believe in evolution? Yes, no, and

maybe

Microevolution.yes

Evolution by chance mutations and natural

selection (alla Stephen Gould).no

Evolution directed in some way to humanbeings at the pinnacle.maybe


59/71

My Bottom Line on Evolution

Design is inherently about purpose, as any

engineering professor (or dictionary) can attest. And

at the core of Christian belief is a theistic God who

purposely created a universe with conscious, complex

life, whatever one may believe about the details of

how He did it.

Chance or Purpose? Creation, Evolution and a

Rational Faith, 2007, Christoph Cardinal Sohonborn


60/71

Ways to Increase Information

Non-random mutations

Fitness landscape has a very special shape,

which is to say the necessary information isencoded in the fitness landscape.

Other things we havent imagined to

achieve the purposeful outcome God has inmind.

3. Can we harmonize discoveries


61/71

3 Ca e a o e d sco e esof modern science with Bible

(especially Genesis 1-11)?Three options:

1. God did it all through miracles in one week. (young earthcreationist)

2. God did it all with a combination of miracles and

processes, which requires a long time. (old earth creationist)

3. God did it all through processes which requires a longtime. (theistic evolutionist)

3 Harmonizing


62/71

3. Harmonizing

Two important things to note

A. Argument is not about whether God did

it but how he did it.

B. Argument is also about what is the

proper interpretation of Genesis.

How much should science influence our in

interpretation of scripture?

3 Harmonizing


63/71

3. Harmonizing..

Comments about interpretations of scripture

Historically, generally assumed to be either solar days or

instantaneous.

Early Jewish scholars were less insistent it was solar days

What kind of days before day four?

What about the 6th day as described in Genesis 2?

Augustine gave good advice for the future and refused to

be too specific in the 5th Century Calvins principle of accommodation in 16th Century

Dr. Bruce Waltke (DTS), Dr. Gleason Archer (Trinity

EDS), Dr. Walter Kaiser (Trinity EDS)

3 Harmonizing


64/71

3. Harmonizing.

Comments about science Strong support for Genesis 1:1-3 in Big Bang

Generally good correspondence between progressive

unfolding of Gods creative work and what we know

from historical sciences

Biggest contention has to do with time of creation

and death before the fall, which YEC deny is

Biblical. Recent six-day creation makes no death in animal

kingdom before the fall possible.


65/71

3. Harmonizing

Possible options for solving time issue

Yom = period of time 24 hour day

Einsteins theory of relativity (D.R.Humphreys, Gerald Schrodinger)

14 different approaches mentioned by Norman

Geisler while at Dallas Theological Seminary

Conservative Christian Scholars


66/71

Generally Support Old Earth View International Council on Biblical Inerrancy

(Hermeneutics Conference, 1982)

Yom might be interpreted either way

Presbyterian Church of America

Recent task force of theologians (~2006) also changedfrom yom = day to yom = either day or long period of

time (4.5 billion for earth, 13.7 for universe okay)

C. John Collins, Covenant Seminary

Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary and TheologicalCommentary

Francis SchaefferNo Final Conflict

Gleason ArcherTrinity SeminaryOld

Testament Surve


67/71

Scientific Evidence and Age of

Universe Big Bang and Astronomy

Radiometric Dating

Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith(June 2007, pp. 143-146). See ASA3.org

Coral Reefs

Ice drilling


68/71

How could the following

scientist be so wrong? Copernicus Galileo

Kepler Newton

Boyles Pascal

Faraday Maxwell

Kelvin etc.


69/71

Summary

Be careful to not be too dogmatic about things that

are uncertain (including my interpretation of

scripture and science).

Be confident we will one day know exactly how

God did it and how long it took.

Be encouraged to see how much God reveals

himself with the fingerprints he has left in naturethat have become even more unmistakable signs

of His existence. Modern science overwhelmingly

supports belief in a creator God


70/71


71/71

Documents

Is the Bible Trustworthy in Areas Related to Science? by Walter Bradley